spirit of immoderate desire, and the spirit of injustice, where each is supposed to be founded in the common disposition to value and covet the possession of too much of more than a man can want, or more than a man can claim for the same reason, the exclusive benefit and enjoyment of the possessor himself.

This reason is contained in the latter part of the 15th verse; the construction of which in the original is somewhat intricate and obscure. The following I believe to be the order of the words, when the ellipsis which they contain is supplied: "Oti év τῷ περισσεύειν τινὶ (τὰ πάντα) ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῦ; and the following is their literal version; "For at the time when all things abound "to a man, his life is not of his possessions." Substantially they amount to this proposition, That at no time, not even when the means of subsistence are most abundant, is existence itself the effect of those means; in the midst of plenty life is as insecure, as in the midst of scarcity; and however ample a man's possessions may be, and however sure his prospect of self-enjoyment if he continues to live-wealth is no voucher for the continuance of existence, no guarantee for the security of life as such-which was neither bestowed at first along with it, nor is attached to it as a necessary consequence or effect of its possession.

The reason, then, of the prohibition of undue desire, is placed upon the known uncertainty of life even in the midst of plenty and profusion; to the validity of which argument it is obviously necessary that the plenty and profusion themselves, in the immoderate desire of which the principle consists,

should be supposed to be coveted for the sake of their enjoyment, and what is more, their selfish and individual enjoyment. It would be of little avail to caution the hearers of the precept, against cupidity which had excess for its object, by warning them that in the midst of abundance, they might at any moment be cut off-that is, at once be debarred from the enjoyment of the coveted possession-if the sole or principal motive to such cupidity were not the means of gratification which the possession of more than enough would bestow, for and upon the possessors themselves. As a simple dissuasive from the desire of the means of subsistence under any circumstances, and with whatever further view in their possession-the consideration of the uncertainty of life in the midst of such means, is as applicable to the desire or possession of just enough, as to that of too much and might be as fitly urged to intimidate persons, who were free from the spirit of undue desire, yet not insensible of the necessity, nor indisposed in a just degree to value and wish for the possession of the goods of life, from acting according to such principles-as those who were not free from it. We cannot suppose our Saviour intended this; nor therefore, to propose the consideration of the insecurity of life at all times, except as a dissuasive from the undue desire of too much as too much: and consequently for its own sake.

Now this is a description of the principle in question, which applies at once to the case of the man, who is actuated in the pursuit of wealth, by the spirit of fraud, rapacity, and injustice; and to his, who is instigated by the spirit of cupidity or greediness only-if as it commonly happens, the

end which both of them contemplate in the enjoyment and use of the wealth they so much covet, when obtained, is the same; viz. their own gratification and indulgence. Nor does it make any difference whether the abuse of wealth in question consists in hoarding it up unprofitably both to its owner and to others, or in the lavish and wasteful profusion of it all upon the self-enjoyment of its possessor. Both these are alike misapplications of the same good, though in different ways; and both are equally opposed to its only legitimate use: both may originate in the same love of money for the sake of its possession, and therefore in the same principle of selfishness, at bottom-in the one case as ministering to the enjoyment of the possessor, per se, in the other, as furnishing the means of ministering to it in a variety of other ways; the mere hoarding and possession of wealth being the source of as selfish and exclusive a gratification to the miserly and covetous, as spending it upon his pleasures, amusements, and indulgences of any kind, is to the prodigal and voluptuary. The latter however, is really the worse evil of the two, both being estimated by their practical consequences as well to the thing possessed, as to the possessor himself and to others. Of the possible modes of applying not only wealth, but any other possession which may be used aright, as well as used amiss, and which may not be used right, yet not actually used wrong-that kind and degree of the application which go to the length of actually abusing the thing possessed, to improper and unnatural purposes, must, on every principle, be more opposed to its due and legitimate application according to its natural powers and

capabilities, than that which goes only to the length of simply not using it at all; that is, which if it does not use and apply it right, still stops short of using and applying it wrong. The former is only negatively evil, the latter is positively criminal. And as it would be better for our moral responsibility, not to have had a certain possession which we were likely to abuse, but for the abuse of which we were liable to give an account; so would it be better for the account itself which we might have to render, to have had such a possession and merely not to have used it right, than to have had it and actually to have used it wrong. On this account, perhaps, both in the present instance, and in every other where the subject of discussion is the use or abuse of wealth, the species of the abuse which is especially held up to exposure and condemnation, in our Saviour's parables, is that of the voluptuous and prodigal, not of the miserly and covetous man.

Now the opposition insisted on, between the insecurity of life, that is, the power of continued enjoyment, and the possession of abundance, that is, the constant presence of the means of enjoyment; seems to imply, that as the continuance of life is necessary to the abuse of wealth, so that continuance may be endangered by this abuse. And if, in the midst of the utmost profusion of the means of subsistence, life itself is neither the effect nor the consequence of that abundance, it follows that it is the effect and consequence of something else, in the midst of that abundance as well as at any other time. Now, what can this be, but the good-will and pleasure of God, the author and giver of all life? from whom as the possession of existence was originally com

municated to his creatures, so its continuance is prolonged to them solely by his forbearing to recall his own gift, which cannot fail to cease and be resigned, whenever he chooses to reclaim it.

When, further, it is considered, that this possible danger to the continuance of life in the midst of wealth, is urged as a dissuasive from the spirit of undue desire, described as above-a desire of wealth for its own or the possessor's sake, such as must terminate in its abuse-it will appear a reasonable inference, that the proper ground of danger to the immunity of life under such circumstances, is, lest the nature of these circumstances themselves should provoke the author of the gift of life to recall his own gift; that is, lest the abuse of wealth, which presupposes the possession of life, and consists in a certain mode and kind of existence, going on at the time-should lead to a punishment in kind, the withdrawing of that very existence, of which an unworthy use is made. If this be the truth intended to be impressed; viz. that the abuse of wealth endangers, in the way of penal retribution, the security of life itself; it makes no difference whether that danger be something inseparably attached to the abuse in question, or an immediate effect of the divine dispensations. If the former is only an appointment of Providence, it is as much judicial, as a special dispensation would make it; and it is as much a provision of God's moral government, though of regular occurrence-for the punishment of the misconduct of his creatures in this life, as his most extraordinary visitations would be.

Now wealth is represented in scripture as a gift of God, as well as life: and the abuse of one of his